4 ms·
> Wikipedia is somewhat ok, but it also misses a TON of stuff, and unfortunately it only has one primary view, whereas many things need some explanation before
by zahlman 1y ago
> Wikipedia is somewhat ok, but it also misses a TON of stuff, and unfortunately it only has one primary view, whereas many things need some explanation before one can understand it.
Last I checked, they had archive.is blacklisted; the people with power there had (as far as I can tell) come to the conclusion that people using that site to prove that websites had stated X on date Y were the bad guys. Of course, they still have archive.org sources everywhere, so the objection is not actually to archiving page content.
Tons of claims also seem to be sourced ultimately to thinly-disguised promotional material (e.g. claims of the prevalence of a problem backed up by the sites of companies offering products to combat the problem) and opinion pieces that happen to mention an objective (but not verified) claim in passing.
- mzajc 1y agoWhere did you check this? While neither are listed on WP:RSP, I know many cites are changed into web.archive.org links once they go down.
- throw0101d 1y ago> Last I checked, they had archive.is blacklisted; the people with power there had (as far as I can tell) come to the conclusion that people using that site to prove that websites had stated X on date Y were the bad guys. Or they're worried about the paywall by-passing functionality (which is probably what a good portion of people use it for) and copyright claims against archive.today potentially having it taken down and thus breaking a lot of links.
- heisgone 1y agoI heard stories of incriminating stuff for higher-ups disappearing from archive.org.
- layman51 1y agoI heard stories about a potential Oracle data breach (I think mainly affecting their customers) being removed from Archive.org too. It’s because in general, they comply with requests to remove stuff, which is understandable from an ethical perspective. But do they at least try to explain the reason for the takedown? Is it just not feasible to do that?
- Animats 1y agoArchive.org honors robots.txt retroactively. So anybody can take down their own stuff by adding a link to their robots.txt file.
- pgalvin 1y agoThis is no longer true. They changed their policy to ignore robots.txt in 2017. I seem to recall that they still respected robots.txt later, though I can’t find any more information on it and may be misremembering. Currently, they do not.
- Animats 1y agoOh. Did not know that.
- 8cvor6j844qw_d6 1y agoDoes it mean archive.org works for any sites? My main use for archive.is is for sites that somehow cannot be archived (a message will show up mentioning this site cannot be archive or something along these lines). archive.is is generally pretty good in forcibly attempting to get an archive, if the HTML doesn't work, the screenshot will work fine. Although archive.is doesn't seem to handle gifs/videos.
- pseudalopex 1y ago> Does it mean archive.org works for any sites? They respected exclusion requests after they stopped to respect robots.txt. I don't know their policy for new exclusion requests.
- Yokolos 1y agoThe difference is that we know who's running archive.org. We don't know who's running archive.is. That's perfectly fine for private use but unacceptable for a site like Wikipedia. It's not that difficult.
- hsuduebc2 1y agoI never concluded that but this actually allows someone, the anonymous here to change the history/info backwards if needed. For russians as an example this would be powerfull tool to manipulate narrative, which is cultural there at this point. Pretty smart and dangerous if it is really operated by them.
- monooso 1y agoSuch practices are by no means limited to Russia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hsuduebc2 1y agoAbsolutely. They we're just example which came to my mind first.
- mk17b 1y agoAlso happens to likely be where the site owner is based https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-of-the-mysterious-guerrilla-archivist-of-the-internet/ https://gyrovague.com/2023/08/05/archive-today-on-the-trail-...
- snickerbockers 1y agoIgnoring the fact that one of this service's primary reason for existing is that corporations and governments are already abusing their ability to retroactively change history. If this is truly a concern then the answer is to have more than one publicly-accessible independent archive service. Archivebro has never taken any steps towards securing a monopoly on archiving things. The FBI are the only ones doing that. Also not everybody in Russia is on the FSB payroll. News media always stops investigating as soon as there is credible information that somebody or their server is located in Russia because if they learn too much then it becomes difficult to discredit them as "possibly being linked to the kremlin". If you used any other nationality to imply that somebody is acting in bad faith on behalf of a hostile foreign government without additional evidence those same journos would call you a racist and try to get you canceled.
- encroach 1y ago> they had archive.is blacklisted What do you mean by this? Wikipedia actively encourages people to use archive.is links in citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_source#Archive.today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_source#Archiv...